Derrick Jensen, so far has been one of the males that support radical feminism that has not turned out to be a complete horror show (yet). I hope that he can contain his male socialization and continue to be a supporter of women and their rights.

Best quote from the article though:

“I listened to the voice of someone who identifies as a transgender who teaches at a university, god help us all, as this person admitted to never hever having read any of my work, but thought I should not be allowed to speak in public because I refused to say the words “Transwomen are women.”. I listened to their voices. And you know what? They sounded just like any other males in patriarchy who have had women say no to them.”

Ryan T. Anderson discussing what he sees as some of the contradictions in the methodology of Transactivists. Read the full piece here. (Note – Not particularly fond of the source – The Daily Signal (via the Heritage Foundation) in the US – but the arguments presented are worth examining.)

“On the one hand, they claim that the real self is something other than the physical body, in a new form of Gnostic dualism, yet at the same time they embrace a materialist philosophy in which only the material world exists. They say that gender is purely a social construct, while asserting that a person can be “trapped” in the wrong gender.

They say there are no meaningful differences between man and woman, yet they rely on rigid sex stereotypes to argue that “gender identity” is real, while human embodiment is not. They claim that truth is whatever a person says it is, yet they believe there’s a real self to be discovered inside that person.

They promote a radical expressive individualism in which people are free to do whatever they want and define the truth however they wish, yet they try ruthlessly to enforce acceptance of transgender ideology.

It’s hard to see how these contradictory positions can be combined. If you pull too hard on any one thread of transgender ideology, the whole tapestry comes unraveled. But here are some questions we can pose:

If gender is a social construct, how can gender identity be innate and immutable? How can one’s identity with respect to a social construct be determined by biology in the womb? How can one’s identity be unchangeable (immutable) with respect to an ever-changing social construct? And if gender identity is innate, how can it be “fluid”?

The challenge for activists is to offer a plausible definition of gender and gender identity that is independent of bodily sex.

Is there a gender binary or not? Somehow, it both does and does not exist, according to transgender activists. If the categories of “man” and “woman” are objective enough that people can identify as, and be, men and women, how can gender also be a spectrum, where people can identify as, and be, both, or neither, or somewhere in between?

What does it even mean to have an internal sense of gender? What does gender feel like? What meaning can we give to the concept of sex or gender—and thus what internal “sense” can we have of gender—apart from having a body of a particular sex?

Apart from having a male body, what does it “feel like” to be a man? Apart from having a female body, what does it “feel like” to be a woman? What does it feel like to be both a man and a woman, or to be neither?

The challenge for the transgender activist is to explain what these feelings are like, and how someone could know if he or she “feels like” the opposite sex, or neither, or both.

Even if trans activists could answer these questions about feelings, that still wouldn’t address the matter of reality. Why should feeling like a man—whatever that means—make someone a man? Why do our feelings determine reality on the question of sex, but on little else? Our feelings don’t determine our age or our height. And few people buy into Rachel Dolezal’s claim to identify as a black woman, since she is clearly not.

If those who identify as transgender are the sex with which they identify, why doesn’t that apply to other attributes or categories of being? What about people who identify as animals, or able-bodied people who identify as disabled? Do all of these self-professed identities determine reality? If not, why not?

And should these people receive medical treatment to transform their bodies to accord with their minds? Why accept transgender “reality,” but not trans-racial, trans-species, and trans-abled reality?

The challenge for activists is to explain why a person’s “real” sex is determined by an inner “gender identity,” but age and height and race and species are not determined by an inner sense of identity.

Of course, a transgender activist could reply that an “identity” is, by definition, just an inner sense of self. But if that’s the case, gender identity is merely a disclosure of how one feels. Saying that someone is transgender, then, says only that the person has feelings that he or she is the opposite sex.

Gender identity, so understood, has no bearing at all on the meaning of “sex” or anything else. But transgender activists claim that a person’s self-professed “gender identity” is that person’s “sex.”

The challenge for activists is to explain why the mere feeling of being male or female (or both or neither) makes someone male or female (or both or neither).

Gender identity can sound a lot like religious identity, which is determined by beliefs. But those beliefs don’t determine reality. Someone who identifies as a Christian believes that Jesus is the Christ. Someone who identifies as a Muslim believes that Muhammad is the final prophet. But Jesus either is or is not the Christ, and Muhammad either is or is not the final prophet, regardless of what anyone happens to believe.

So, too, a person either is or is not a man, regardless of what anyone—including that person—happens to believe. The challenge for transgender activists is to present an argument for why transgender beliefs determine reality.”

Like this:

There are lots of problems with how most of society treats transgendered people. Trying to sort out how best to rectify this has lead to many unproductive clashes. A major disagreement centres around whether biologically male transgendered people are actually women. My question to the BioMaleTrans is this: Why do you think you’re a woman?

I commonly see two answers to this question. The first of which is ‘I identify as a woman’. This doesn’t actually provide any information and is, therefore, not actually an answer. It is merely restating the original position that was being questioned in the first place. In this case, “I think I am” is perfectly synonymous to “I identify as”.

The second common answer is pretty much the same: ‘I feel like I’m a woman’. Still no new information, still synonymous with the original. Still not an answer.

So let’s get specific. Let’s do away with the vague, the obscure, and the etherial. Let’s dispose of brevity and confusion. Let’s look at some possible detailed answers as to why you think you are / feel you are / identify as a woman.

Do you like to wear skirts, dresses, and/or lingerie?
Well, that may be common in women, but it is in no way tied to them being women.
There are women who don’t like to wear any of those thing, but that does not mean they are somehow not women.
There are non-women who do like to wear some or all of those things, but that does not magically turn them into women.

Do you like having long hair and/or wearing make up.
Well, that may be common in women, but it is in no way tied to them being women.
There are women who don’t like either of those things, but that does not mean they are somehow not women.
There are non-women who do like both of those things, but that does not magically turn them into women.

Do you speak with what today’s society might consider a “feminine” lilt?
Well, that may be common in women, but it is in no way tied to them being women.
There are women who don’t speak with such a lilt, but that does not mean they are somehow not women.
There are non-women who do speak so, but that does not magically turn them into women.

Do you like the colour pink, romantic comedies, stuffed toys, spa days, looking at attractive men and/or any other thing that fits some version of the “feminine” stereotype?
Well, that may be common in women, but it is in no way tied to them being women.
There are women who don’t like any of these things, but that does not mean they are somehow not women.
There are non-women who do like many of these things, but that does not magically turn them into women.

Do you more easily connect with women than you do with men?
Well, that may be common in women, but it is in no way tied to them being women.
There are women who get along better with men, but that does not mean they are somehow not women.
There are non-women who get along better with women, but that does not magically turn them into women.

Do you express emotions in what much of our culture would call a “feminine” manner?
Well, that may be common in women, but it is in no way tied to them being women.
There are women who express their emotions in non “feminine” ways, but that does not mean they are somehow not women.
There are non-women who express themselves in all kinds of “feminine” ways, but that does not magically turn them into women.

Do you constantly get bullied, ostracized, and/or mistreated by entitled fuckwit men?
Well, that may be extremely common in women, but it is in no way tied to them being women.
There are a few women who aren’t consistently mistreated, but that does not mean they are somehow not women.
There are non-women who do suffer unimaginably because of these bastards, but that does not magically turn them into women.

Any reason, or combination of reasons, a BioMaleTrans could possibly give for ‘being a woman’ would necessarily be tied to a gender stereotype. That is, any claim of actually being a woman is inextricably rooted in harmful bullshit gender roles. There is only one valid claim to womanhood, and it is one that a BioMaleTrans is inherently excluded from: biology.

If there is anything that will enrage men more is women speaking out against their view of the world. The first class citizens get mighty mad when the second class start challenging their assertions and interpretations of the world.

This post delves into the war of words that is currently raging between transactivists and radical feminists in the wake of the Vancouver Women’s March.

It starts with one courageous individual at the Women’s march who expressed herself via a sign which, of course, was immediately labelled ‘transphobic’ and caused much consternation for certain trans identified males involved with the march.

Keep in mind the woman’s only ‘crime’ is expressing her opinion while at a Women’s march.

So then this happened. One fine TIM (trans identified male) decided he wanted to go after this woman carrying a sign at the protest. This next screen shot is from The Feminist Current.

The battle against transactivism is being fought now. Patriarchy 2.0 is happening and Meghan Murphy along with other feminists are on the front lines defending women and the right to speak the truth about their bodies and experiences.

Oh, just shaking my head at this one. Watch the trans identified male dig a nice hole for himself as he debates with Meghan Murphy and other gender critical feminists.

I have laws enshrined in society now that protects my male delusions of gender, fear me female! Of course, cue the defence against the world of facts and reality.

Julie Rei makes assertions that are not based in fact. Watch how quickly Julie gets shut down.

Whoo-whee! Now there is some goal-post shifting at its finest. Shift away Julie, I’m pretty sure Gender Rebel is not going to brook any of your shit.

Lol-cakes! The idea that you can adopt the patriarchally approved gender stereotypes and that somehow makes you a woman is not only foolish, it is appalling. Bullshit patriarchal expectations are what radical feminists fight against because, you guessed it, they hurt women (and men).

In the last panel Scott rightly points out the irony of Morgane’s position and PinkPussyHatRadFemTERF delivers the Coup de grâce doing what radfems do best naming the problem and identifying how to counter it.

This BS sadly is happening in my country. I’m so very glad that we have people who are standing up to the trans-cult when they make assertions contrary to reality. Oh hey, let me get that definition mentioned in the twitter stream.

Pluralistic Ignorance – “In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which a majority of group members privately reject a norm, but incorrectly assume that most others accept it, and therefore go along with it.[1] This is also described as “no one believes, but everyone thinks that everyone believes”. In short, pluralistic ignorance is a bias about a social group, held by that social group.[2][3]

Pluralistic ignorance may help to explain the bystander effect.[4] If no-one acts, onlookers may believe others believe action is incorrect, and may therefore themselves refrain from acting.”

Feminists (those who struggle for the emancipation of women from patriarchy) are being attacked for merely naming the problem that they face. Gender is a problem, it is a toxic hierarchy that hurts both women and men. The liberal mainstream won’t have any of it though (quelle suprise~!~). Instead, the notion of gender identity is being enshrined in law and shoehorned into society which of course is good for men, but bad for women. Women brave enough to challenge the ideology of ‘gender identity’ are are routinely misconstrued, harassed, and marginalized. Why?

Questioning the dominant patriarchal narrative – and yes the transactivist narrative is inherently patriarchal – is challenging male dominance in society, and will always be vilified and marginalized.

The good news is that the dictates of reality defying ‘gender-identity’ platform, even if just superficially examined, are unpalatable to not only to the so-called ‘mainstream sensibilities’, but also to those who value rational arguments based on material reality and fact.

Feminists have known this pretty much since the beginning and the radical vanguard are now slowly being joined by those who appreciate the strength of radical feminist arguments and analysis.

Let us hope this trend continues and intensifies, because Patriarchy 2.0 is in dire need of a serious blaming.

“The notion that “gender identity” exists at all flies in the face of feminist analysis, which says being born female is what forces women into an oppressed class of people, regardless of whether or not they identify with that position. But this point, as well as the concerns women have expressed around the impact of writing something as vague and as regressive as “gender identity” into legislation, including questions around whether males should be permitted in female prisons, change rooms, and transition houses, go unacknowledged and unaddressed by trans activists and queer theorists like Barker. Instead, she paints challenges to this ideology as nothing more than a hateful, unfounded, irrational attack on trans-identified individuals, writing:

“A moral panic is the process of arousing social concern over an issue. Moral panics often involve scapegoating a particular group as the ‘evil’ responsible for a range of societal ills.”

Indeed, Barker sounds no different than the anti-feminists over at Spiked, who claim the #MeToo campaign is a “harassment panic” that demonizes men unfairly. She claims trans-identified people are vilified by challenges to and questions about transgenderism, trans activism, and policies that allow men to enter into women-only spaces, simply based on self-identification, intentionally declining to acknowledge that what women fear is not an abstract trans-identified person, but men, specifically. No one has argued, as Barker claims, that trans-identified people are specifically dangerous or violent. What has been argued is that males are a threat to females, regardless of how they identify. If this fact is indeed considered a “moral panic” in the eyes of people like Jones and Barker, then they are better suited for the alt-right crowd than they are among progressives.

Barker says that this kind of “moral panic” (commonly known as “feminism”) exists to “enable us to attack a specific group for problems we’re all implicated in”… As though we have no idea who is doing all the raping and beating in this world and as though women are equally as culpable…”

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

This Blog best viewed with Ad-Block and Firefox!

What is ad block? It is an application that, at your discretion blocks out advertising so you can browse the internet for content as opposed to ads. If you do not have it, get it here so you can enjoy my blog without the insidious advertising.